Indeed, monochromatic moralizing with a baseball bat. I would characterize Ayn Rands writings as obtuse. What sort of non-self-aware person terms their persona

Indeed, monochromatic moralizing with a baseball bat. I would characterize Ayn Rands writings as obtuse. What sort of non-self-aware person terms their personal philosophy "objectivism"? AS-IF you were "objective", Ayn. In my mind, Ayd Rands philosophies are immoral. Most of the problems life on earth faces at this junction in time are caused by human selfishness on the part of individual actors who actively seek to undermine humanities necessary collective corrections 1) environmental catastrophes of all sorts, including climate change 2) extreme poverty, folks without basic health-care, drinking-water, food, shelter, etc. I see Ayn claiming that big bosses "earned it" but I question the extent to which Bezos, Musk, Gates, etc, "earned it"... certainly 6 figure salaries, but the equivalent of entire continents full of nations GDP? It seems like a broken system, bare-minimum. The idea that one could propose the harshness of our economic failed-systems as the exclusive solution to every human issue = implausible at best. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" - is this only true when you want to acknowledge our computing forebears, or does not society provide individuals with tools and materials they would never be able to individually obtain etc? From arms-makers who push for specific foreign policies to oil companies who fund right-wing astroturf movements, the problem has the same origin: The economy and markets are what rule human activities on planet earth. Governments must cater to them, at their peril. The economy and markets treat environmental catastrophes like "the tragedy of the commons" like externalities. Radical Individualism is not a philosophy, it's a religious conviction, and cannot allow any alternative ideas to exist, witness the discourse here and the dismissive manner folks treat a rather decent author (whatever your point of view on their conclusions), versus putting a rather technically-poor writer on a pedestal. Her characters never develop or think a different thought from beginning to end, as the authors moralizing overpowers the frail thread of an attempt at disguising her viewpoint as a story, etc. I can't see how anyone can seriously pick on this Nautilus writer while giving Ayn Rand a free pass. There was a brick factory in the old town I used to live in. The owner died and his son didn't want to run it. They liquidated it. They liquidated 500+ jobs and those 500+ folks went on the unemployment rolls and starting being a social drain in lieu of a social boon. Does society not have an interest in keeping this brick factory running, for the sake of the local economy etc? Could the Camera Municipal simply have insisted that they will find buyers for the factory but that liquidation is not an option? Does society have no rights? Ayn Rand grants society nothing. zero. zilch. Clearly society exists. I have a real issue with the English-speaking worlds lack of reflection on etymology and the actual meaning of words. Thatcher "given A, A does not exist" Teresa May "Diogenes coined a word I don't like" (never mind that cosmopolitan literally means citizen of everywhere, thus contradicting the notion that a cosmopolitan could ever be a citizen of nowhere. hello "words" and "meanings" for 10 points...)